Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Ancient Greek city-states, and Black Plagal cadences aside, I am not certain how any of this relates to Poor Miss Lucy’s questions. But now I have a few questions of my own, one of which I have already asked you:

Originally Posted By: btb

In my book the Major scale isTTtTTTt (totalling 6T)and the minor scaleTtTTTTt (totalling 6T)

Originally Posted By: LoPresti

Would that TtTTTTt pattern of the minor scale be an exact reverse if played descending (tTTTTtT)?

Secondly, where would I look to verify that what you refer to as the GREEK Dorian mode (minor scale) --

Anyway....the issue is whether the reply we're talking about was put in a way that the OP would be likely to understand . . . I just teased Ed a little, and I hope he didn't mind.

Hi Mark,

I absolutely do not mind anyone questioning anything I write, AND I like to keep it fun. In fact, I think I included a little "disclaimer" at the bottom of my original answer to Miss Lucy, mentioning that she had not asked a question that could do with a trivial answer.

Ed

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

The one thing it does take knowing is what's the "Dorian mode." I assume you do (and I'm pretty sure it's been stated on here) but for anyone who might not, it's the scale you get when you play all the white keys from D to D.

Knowing the modes, I didn't find it hard to see what btb's notation meant. I just looked at one of the modes and wondered how the heck that notation might mean what I knew it was, and it was readily clear (although, I thought, I bit odd). Once you recognize what the notation means, there's nothing needing to be verified. Here it is:

Capital letter means the note is followed by a whole step upward. Small letter means the note is followed by a half step upward.

Knowing the modes, I didn't find it hard to see what btb's notation meant. I just looked at one of the modes and wondered how the heck that notation might mean what I knew it was, and it was readily clear (although, I thought, I bit odd). Once you recognize what the notation means, there's nothing needing to be verified.

But -- but -- Mark,

That pattern of btb's does NOT describe any Dorian mode of which I am aware (Greek or otherwise). In fact, that pattern of whole and half-steps does not match any one of the church modes. So while it might be easier to understand for you than my post, I believe it is simply WRONG. ( I am still waiting to hear back about if it descends in the exact reverse.)

Ed

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 20323
Loc: New York

It's not wrong. It's the exact usual Dorian mode. Perhaps to make it simple: Start at the note D and go upward according to the notation as I explained it, and see if it doesn't hit all the right notes.

(It does.)

I suspect you aren't exactly understanding the notation, despite the explanation of it. Maybe take another look at it, but I can't explain it any better than I did.

Or maybe you have a different idea of what's the "Dorian mode." Do you understand it as anything other than what was said?

I have tried to be patient and cordial. Now I AM becoming annoyed as you continue to harp on simplicity, and presume to teach me about rudiments and theory. Without calling your glowing credentials into question, you are way (WAY) out of your depth here.

Originally Posted By: Mark_C

It's not wrong. It's the exact usual Dorian mode. Perhaps to make it simple: Start at the note D and go upward according to the notation as I explained it, and see if it doesn't hit all the right notes. . . . (It does.) :

Following the pattern: TtTTTTt D – then up a whole step (T) to – E – then up a half-step (t) to - F - then up a whole step (T) to –G - then up a whole step (T) to – A - then up a whole step (T) to –B - then up a whole step (T) to –? C# ? - then up a half-step (t) to - D

Originally Posted By: Mark_C

I suspect you aren't exactly understanding the notation, despite the explanation of it. Maybe take another look at it, but I can't explain it any better than I did.

So now I invite you once again to show us all where I am wrong, and explain how a C# somehow found its way into your usual Dorian mode on D.

Or, maybe quit while you are behind . . .Ed

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 20323
Loc: New York

LoPresti: You're right, and I owe you an apology. But you we me one too.

A couple of things got confused. He never said that the thing you're indicating was the "Dorian mode"; he said it was MINOR.

And it is. It's the ascending melodic minor. I'm not sure how you got into considering it his notation for the Dorian mode.

And in this post of his, he did indicate the Dorian mode in his notation (in that post he called it "Spartan" but indicated that it's the same as Dorian), and the notation there does match the Dorian mode exactly. That's what I was following when I did the above posts, and I just didn't notice that what you indicated was different.

The Ancient Greeks had a musical system, and the names Dorian, Phrygian etc. referred to various Greek states, as btb says. Their system does not correspond directly to what we know in modern times. For one thing, they had three "species spanning a P4 including one that had a quarter tone. However, if you take 4 notes spanning a P4, and another 4 notes spanning a P4, you will get an octave and some kind of scale.

The music evolved, and you ended up with the Dorian - Hypodorian etc. that btb talks about. It wasn't exactly the construct of modern music and it didn't function the same way, but you could trace the outline of the various modes as we know them today.

Then finally when we get to what we know in modern times as "modes", the names were made official, but they messed up. They were trying to use the same names that the Greeks did, but they didn't get it right. The older names would have made our modern major scale "Dorian", but for some reason they named it "Ionian". The scholars talk about this and basically they're saying, "Ok, we know what names existed for the older system, and we'll stay aware of both of them, but for modern things we'll say Ionian = major scale, Aeolian = natural minor etc."

The white keys reference where Ionian = C to C, Dorian = D to D, Phrygian = E to E, Lydian = F to F is a modern shortcut for remembering these names, and it works quite well. Of course any of these modes can start on any note, and it's the intervals in the scale that must stay commensurate.

LoPresti: You're right, and I owe you an apology. But, there's a "but" -- a couple of things got confused.

He never said that the thing you're indicating was the "Dorian mode"; he said it was MINOR.

And it is. It's the ascending melodic minor.

Dorian mode is not related to any of the common minor scales we know today. Nor is the ascending melodic minor a match for any of the church modes. Nor is the harmonic, for that matter.

The harmonic minor and melodic minor have their roots in modern music theory, where we consider things like the functionality of leading tones. Medieval composers didn't concern themselves with that; they stuck to their church modes until counterpoint, even temperament and Rameau's writings started to make people think about the way notes tend to interact with one another. We shouldn't try to apply modern thinking to ancient concepts; leave our scale types as what they are and leave the old church modes alone.

Found it in a book that was passed on to me years ago and I have never managed to read because my eyes would glaze over.

HISTORY OF MODES in short form

First we have plainchant, the chants used in religious ceremonies that took boys their entire childhood to learn because it was all by rote memory. The chants were like patched together common melodic patterns or riffs and they didn't really think much about them. This went on for hundreds of years.

We get to the 10th century, where they tried to get some order to this by finding underlying patterns. Once you have a structure you can start playing with music.

"The formation of the modal system, then, was in part an effort to extract the fundamentla series of modes from the existing plainchant repertoiry. At the same time, however, tenth-century theorists tried to relate their modes to the complex Greek system as transmitted by Boethius and later Latin writers. This accounts for the Greek names of the eight modes, although nothing else about them is Greek; and even the names were misapplied. (In the Greek modal system, Dorian begins on E, Phrygian on D, Lydian on C, and Mixolydian on B.).... "(1)

It goes on to say that the constructs created in the 10th century had a huge effect on how music developed from then on. Meanwhile, the original chants from which it was "extracted" didn't always fit the structure that they derived from them. So they had to alter the chants themselves, sort of like the feet of Cinderella's ugly stepsisters trying to fit the glass slipper, except that in this case the slipper was faulty. (What else is new about theory).

Why are we even talking about modes? They have no relevance to the OP's question.

The forms of the minor scale do, but I fear we're making things far more complicated than they really are. It's this simple:

Major is major. It's like vanilla. That's it. Major. Vanilla.

Minor is different. It's like chocolate. There's "natural" chocolate, but, like minor, nobody really uses "natural" chocolate. It doesn't become all that useful or tasty until you process it.

So we have two ways of processing minor. One way is to raise the 7th, which works really well in 18th and 19th century styles where things like dominant chords and leading tones are important. Another way is to raise 6 and 7 ascending, which can help smooth out melodies.

For the sake of argument, let's call harmonic minor dark chocolate and melodic minor milk chocolate. That doesn't mean that other kinds of chocolate don't exist and that dark and milk chocolate can't live together in the same piece. It happens all the time - we combine chocolates (minors!) according to taste and style.

When people get confused about music theory, it's usually because they want an answer to the question "which kind of minor is this piece in?" But that's like asking "which kind of chocolate is in this cookie?" Not all cookies are 100% milk or 100% dark chocolate. (I myself mix the two in chocolate chip cookies, it's yummy!) And don't forget about white chocolate!

Now...this isn't music theory's fault. (And it's not cocoa's fault.) That's just how life is. Music usually involves a combination of sounds, just as food involves a combination of flavors. Nobody gets bent out of shape because a recipe calls for dark chocolate *and* milk, so why should we get bent out of shape when a piece contains leading tones and flattened sevenths?

_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

However, btb's proposed intervals for minor are only true for one kind of minor, while the minor scale fluctuates for the 6th and 7th, as we all know. Going by btb's description, he is describing the melodic minor.

A(T)B(t)C(T)D(T)E(T)F#(T)G#(t)A

I see that you are fishing for the descending melodic minor, which we are taught in lessons to play in the form of the natural minor. Actual compositions don't necessarily follow that pattern, but we're still taught it that way.

So you want to see (read backward of course)

A(T)B(t)C(T)D(T)E(t)F(T)G(T)A

Btw, I tend to think of intervals in scales like one sees the holes in a fence between the slats marking the distance between the slats. There is a delightful German nonsense poem about the Gartenzaun mit Zwischenraum, (The garden fence with "in-between-spaces" between the slats), and the poet proposes building a house out of the Zwischenraum. In the same way an interval is a thing that isn't. It is Zwischenraum. (ducks and hides)

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 20323
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: Kreisler

Why are we even talking about modes? They have no relevance to the OP's question....

I don't know either.

It started because I was asked what "natural minor" was called in my theory courses, I said "Aeolian mode" (when it was called anything at all, which it usually wasn't), and then began this series of digressions and tangents.

Meanwhile, as far as I'm concerned we still don't really know what Lucy was asking, or whether she's gotten anything from any of this. I would have wanted to get some clarification from her before trying to get into anything at all.

Yeah, Lo Presti and I pretty much had it covered, though given the OP's inexact terminology, there was a bit of guesswork.

It's always interesting to see how these discussions go. Theory's one of those odd subjects that's very difficult to treat. It's very rigorous, but not really, and only sometimes. And there are multiple right and wrong answers with several dividing lines between the two that tend to be either clear or not. And the language, perspective and background of the author and reader adds a lens that further obfuscates the lack of clarity. And that's in the US. Add Europe and Canada into the mix and....

Originally Posted By: Dave Horne

Kreisler, I thought you had already answered the initial question.

I was going to respond but the original wasn't entirely clear ... and I'm really glad I didn't.

_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

When substituting the viib for V7 in minor keysI have noticed that the bass note is often flattenedmaking it a major VIIb {the leading note is notraised a semitone}. This I can comprehend becausein a minor key approaching a cadence the V major isused not the v minor { in viib7 the 7th [6th of the scales] is still raised}. Have I got this all correct? Thanks

I think I finally got Lucy's question.

Take C minor.She's talking about the bVII -- i.e. we have not raised Bb of the signature to Bnat (which we can do and often do) so we don't have a Bdim --- we have Bb which is a major chord.

Then she is asking about the "7th" in a bVII7 (Bb7) and she is asking whether the 7th (which is the 6th of the scale) is raised.

Ok, in Cm, the 6th note is Ab. Bb7 = BbDFAb. Lucy is asking whether the Ab that we find in the key of Cm is raised. Well, with a raised Ab, we'd get Bb(maj7). If we want a Bb7, then the Ab stays as it is, to answer that question directly.

Now going on, Lucy is asking in the context of a cadence. A cadence concludes a phrase and/or brings the music to some tonality. Thus we have V-I, V7-I, and sometimes viio-I (the viio can be seen as the top part of a V7, or it can be seen as having leading note and other significant notes that like to move to the tonic). The viio-I is usually written in first inversion, especially in minor (viio6-Im). And here we would have had a raised B for BDF to Cm. For a seventh I guess we'd have BDFAb = Bdim7. I could see Bdim7 moving to Cm.

Back to Lucy's Bb. I suppose we could move from Bb to Cm. But would that be a cadence? Is the movement strong enough to be felt as a cadence? (Real question - not rhetorical).

The Bb7 however (bII7) is the V7 of the relative major - key of Eb major. So it would be a perfect way of transitioning from a minor key (C minor) to a major key (Eb major). Meanwhile, I can move from Bb7 to Cm but I have no idea whether that is a good move. My "harmonic ear" is not that developed.

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 20323
Loc: New York

Keystring: Why don't we wait until Lucy herself tells us what she meant. Otherwise we're just guessing, and it ain't worth it.

Originally Posted By: Kreisler

Yeah, Lo Presti and I pretty much had it covered, though given the OP's inexact terminology, there was a bit of guesswork.

Yes, there was -- so how can you feel you had anything covered?

Quote:

It's always interesting to see how these discussions go....

What I find most interesting is how people felt they could answer a question without being sure what it was.

Wouldn't you feel the best thing is to ask for clarification first? Otherwise, you're expending your brain energy for perhaps nothing.

I see that that doesn't bother you much, nor some others. Me, I can't get interested in trying to answer something till I know what it is. I also think it's often even more helpful to the questioner him/herself to let them know they need to clarify what they're talking about than to answer their question, because helps them with the clarity of their thought and expression. I think that's usually way more important than knowing the answer to a particular thing.

Keystring: Why don't we wait until Lucy herself tells us what she meant. Otherwise we're just guessing, and it ain't worth it.

The point was to parse it out, so that she could tell us if this is what she meant. When you don't have enough formal theory, you also don't have the vocabulary, which puts you into a difficult position. Sometimes when it is reworded it's helpful.

Besides, ** I ** also asked questions and I am interested in thoughts on them.

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 20323
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: keystring

....When you don't have enough formal theory, you also don't have the vocabulary, which puts you into a difficult position....

Not really. As I suggested to her in an earlier post, it might well be that all she'd need to do would be to forget about the terminology and just tell us the notes she's talking about.

Quote:

....Besides, ** I ** also asked questions and I am interested in thoughts on them.

Fine, and maybe some people will want to get into those, but it would take wading through a post (i.e. yours) that tries at length to clarify the totally unclear question of someone who seems not to be here and not available to help with it, before getting to the part where you ask your questions. Maybe some people will want to do that. I wouldn't (didn't even get to that part of your post) because of what I've said -- that it's a waste of time (and brain cells) to give any attention to trying to guess anything about her question. I suspect some others would feel that way too.

So, why take all this time with these posts? Because talking like this doesn't require brain cells. This is just talking.

The beauty of forums is that there are so many people out there who will potentially read these posts, all of them different from one another. So what is hard or heavy "wading" for one, might not be so for another. For example, you found Ed Lopresti's summary of minor scales to be hard reading even for someone with advanced theory. It was familiar territory for me, and I think I got the gist of it in maybe 30 seconds, and then another minute just to make sure. In the same way, my own post with its questions on the bottom may just be up someone's alley. Different strokes for different folks, and if you don't post you'll never know. So I did.

There is a delightful German nonsense poem about the Gartenzaun mit Zwischenraum, (The garden fence with "in-between-spaces" between the slats), and the poet proposes building a house out of the Zwischenraum.

I love the phrase - well, butchering it, attempting to pronounce - and I love the concept!

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 20323
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: keystring

The beauty of forums is that there are so many people out there who will potentially read these posts, all of them different from one another. So what is hard or heavy "wading" for one, might not be so for another. For example, you found Ed Lopresti's summary of minor scales to be hard reading even for someone with advanced theory. It was familiar territory for me, and I think I got the gist of it in maybe 30 seconds, and then another minute just to make sure. In the same way, my own post with its questions on the bottom may just be up someone's alley. Different strokes for different folks, and if you don't post you'll never know. So I did.

We may see some things a little differently but I give this a big thumb up.

Thanks MarkH for the explanation homing in on the Ionian mode for the Major scale ... of which I was aware ... them thar Greeks apparently settled on a fixed arrangement of the modal notes ... and depending on which mountainous group you twanged your lyre ...